Farah, of course, will not tell you that. He's actually complaining about the New York Times being insufficient respectful of WND's birther conspiracy theories and yet again blaming President Obama for ignoring said conspiracy theories.
Given Farah's own lies about the birther stuff, it's no wonder he's searching for truth -- he apparently can't find it anywhere within his own news organization.
UPDATE: Speaking of FArah's inability to tell the truth, Farah writes in his Sept,. 16 column, complaining about a Wall Street Journal blogger who called WND "a media outlet that says Barack Obama is foreign-born and can’t be president":
"If you can't find one reference anywhere in WND's extensive archives in which anyone at WND concludes, claims or states that Obama is foreign born, I want a retraction and correction issued by you," I told him. "I'll save you the trouble. There aren't any such references."
Actually, there are. As we've pointed out, WND columnist Craige McMillan hasrepeatedlycalled Obama an "illegal alien," which sounds an awful lot like a statement that Obama is foreign born, and the whole of WND's coverage is designed to portray Obama as a foreign entity. No correction necessary.
The WSJ blogger also tweaks WND for referring to a stop on its upcoming cruise as being in "Hispanola" when it's actually in Haiti (located on the island of Hispanola). Farah is upset about that, too.
Posted by Terry K.
at 9:21 AM EDT
Updated: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:15 AM EDT
New Article: The Color of Money, The Color of Bias Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center makes increasingly desperate and logic-defying attempts to spin away News Corp.'s $1 million donation to a Republican group. Read more >>
Remember that endorsement Newsmax made of Chris Cox in the New York 1st District Republican primary? That didn't work out so well.
Cox ended up third in the three-man race, getting just 23 percent of the vote. The winner, Randy Altschuler, received 45 percent, with George Demos receiving 30 percent.
So this worked about as well as Newsmax's endorsement of Bill McCollum, and it didn't even have to grossly slant its coverage of the race in the process or send Christopher Ruddy and Dick Morris to quietly raise money for him.
Walsh Peddles Fistful of Unsubstantiated Claims Topic: Newsmax
The Sept. 13 column by anti-immigration activist James Walsh is headlined, "Federal Figures on Illegal Aliens Misleading." But Walsh appears to be the one doing the misleading by making a slew of unsubstantiated claims.
Unfortunately, federal government estimates of illegal alien numbers tend to rely on flawed data based on erroneous assumptions. Flawed in one is flawed in all.
Contrary to the Pew study, the downturn in the U.S. economy has not stopped the flow of illegal aliens across the southwest border. The only “change” is that illegal aliens who once came for jobs now come for social and health entitlements.
What evidence does Walsh cite to back up this claim? None.
The Obama administration early on created DHS Fusion Centers located across the nation purportedly to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in sharing intelligence and thwarting terrorism such as the 9/11 attacks.
Instead these Fusion Centers have become mechanisms for domestic spying, political chicanery, and labeling as suspect those who support enforcement of existing U.S. immigration laws. Secretary Napolitano stands by DHS reports that question the patriotism of U.S. citizens who question Obama's policies.
What evidence does Walsh cite to back up this claim? None.
Meanwhile, many announcements by federal agencies appear to be originating in the White House war room, with the input of radical left groups, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for American Progress. These groups are leading advocates of open borders and amnesty for all.
What evidence does Walsh cite to back up this claim? None.
The Obama administration would reshape U.S. immigration as a transnational right, which is not surprising with a president who was touted by the German press as a “citizen of the world.” Amnesty was the Obama campaign promise that won him the Hispanic vote. Whether he achieves it by federal legislation or executive policy, unauthorized-immigrant advocates are holding him to that promise.
What evidence does Walsh cite to back up this claim? None.
But Walsh isn't done misleading. He writes:
In laying the groundwork for amnesty, the Obama administration claims that the southwest border is “as secure as it’s been in 20 years.” If based on border apprehensions, such claims are fallacious.
Current apprehensions at the border may well be down to 1990 levels, but the explanation is not fewer border crossers, but more U.S. Border Patrol agents detailed to offices miles from these “too dangerous” borderlands.
By focusing on border apprehensions, Walsh ignores other indicators that border enforcement is up. As PolitiFact details, the number of people removed from the U.S. via deportation or other means has dramatically increased. Further, according to PolitiFact, the reason border apprehensions are down is because the number of people attempting to cross the border from Mexico has declined -- contrary to Walsh's unsubstantiated assertion that it hasn't.
Walsh even dragged out the hoary old freakout that a report issued by the Department of Homeland Security 'question[ed] the patriotism of U.S. citizens who question Obama's policies" and depicted "military veterans" as "suspect" for becoming "adherents of right-wing extremism." In fact, an FBI report issued under the Bush administration was cited as evidence that "White supremacist extremist Web sites tend to view the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as an opportunity to recruit new members." Walsh also conveniently fails to mention that DHS issued a similar report on left-wing extremism.
CNS' Starr Offended City Spending Tourism Money to Attract Gays Topic: CNSNews.com
A Sept. 14 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr begins:
The Richmond Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau (RMCVB), which is funded in part by hotel taxes, is promoting an initiative by local businesses to attract homosexuals to Virginia’s capital.
But Starr never explains why this is a bad thing, beyond the implication that spending tax money on gay people is inherently a bad thing. Starr's laughable attempt to find something wrong with a city expanding its tourism reach is best exemplifiedby this section, in which Starr details her incisive questioning:
Erin Bagnell, public relations manager for the RMCVB, and Jennifer Carnam, vice president of marketing, confirmed that although White and other sponsors are funding the Rainbow Over Richmond campaign, hotel tax funding is used to pay for all of the RMCVB’s operating costs, including its Web site and the pages it hosts and promotes.
Bagnell and Carnam told CNSNews.com that this mission of RMCVB is to promote and support all efforts to increase tourism in the Richmond region, be it an item added by a local arts group on its Web site calendar or by hosting a landing page on its Web site for initiatives like Rainbow Over Richmond.
CNSNews.com asked Bagnell and Carnam, “According to your Web site, your organization is funded in part by lodging, a portion of the lodging taxes from people who come and stay in hotels in Richmond, correct?”
Carnam answered, “Yes.”
CNSNews.com also asked the following: “If you go to Rainbow Over Richmond, you end up on your Web site [a landing page for Rainbow site], so your organization is funded – everything you do, whether it’s your personnel, office space, your Web site, your utilities – that a portion of what you do as a group, as a non-profit, a portion of your income is from lodging taxes? Correct?”
Carnam answered, “Correct.”
“That’s what we’re charged with at the convention and visitors bureau; to drive people to this area,” Bagnell said.
“We’re a welcoming destination,” Bagnell said. “We are welcoming to all.”
“Our goal is to promote the Richmond region as a welcoming destination, whether you’re coming for a family with your kids from the Washington, D.C., area or whether you’re bringing your family reunion, or whether you have a religious conference,” Carnam said. “We’re one of the top destinations for religious organizations who come here and use our convention center.”
This is nothing more than a failed attempt at homophobia. Starr has previouslyrelayed anti-gay sentiments in her CNS articles.
Another of my late grandmother's many sayings was: "Sometimes it's hard to tell which is worse – the smell from the pile in the pasture or the flies it draws." Thus, in 21 words, she summed up my thoughts, feelings and disgust for the Obamas and their view of America.
In this economy, Obama's policies will be the death knell for many small businesses struggling to survive. Furthermore, they will decimate small towns, many of which are made up entirely of small businesses.
Never mind the track record on these policies. Obama and most Democrats plan to ride this horse till it drops.
It never ceases to amaze me how a complacent people can be lured into self-destructive behavior.
In 1978, 912 members of the People's Temple, a predominantly African-American cult formed in San Francisco by Jim Jones, were either murdered or voluntarily committed suicide in Jamestown, Guyana. Those who committed what Jones referred to as revolutionary suicide drank Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. Many who refused to take their own lives were shot. Interestingly, Jim Jones was a community organizer who chided his subjects as they faced death, telling them that crying was not appropriate because that was not how socialists or communists should die.
Does the term community organizer ring a more contemporary bell? Does the odor of socialism taint today's political atmosphere?
Our nation is being led down the path to a contemporary Jonestown by another former community organizer who was trained and indoctrinated by yet another community organizer, Saul Alinsky, a deracinated Jew and a self-described "rebel" who dedicated his life to trying to destroying the economic and social system in America, a system he believed to be oppressive and unjust.
People used to talk about the seven-year itch as the time in a marriage when one or both spouses was likely to start fantasizing about hooking up with another man or, as is more often the case, another woman. Well, I've reached that point. Not with my wife, you understand, but with Barack Obama.
The truth is, I wasn't that into him even during the courtship. But after nearly two years, I have to say it's just not working out, and it's not just one thing. It's everything.
Frankly, I'm surprised that his campaign, along with his books, didn't red-flag his red beliefs for more people. But I suspect that a lot of folks wanted to garner racial brownie points by voting for a black man and allowed their hearts to rule their heads.
Oscar Wilde once cynically observed that Niagara Falls was the second biggest disappointment in the life of a young American bride. I suspect that even more than his stimulus bill or Obamacare, it was Obama's insufferable arrogance that quickly ended the honeymoon he was having with the voters.
The man is so smug, overbearing and self-aggrandizing, that he is, as he promised to be, the antithesis of George Bush, but not in a good way. Furthermore, I can't believe that anybody ever thought he was eloquent. Without a Teleprompter, he turns into Porky Pig. I keep expecting him to end a press conference with "Th-Th-Th-That's all, folks!"
It is a good thing the media have elected to cover for President Obama, our first affirmative action president. If his true depth of incompetence were revealed by an inquisitive reporter, not enchanted by his wiles, America would be the laughing stock of the world for electing him.
So my personal thanks to the mainstream media in America for not making a bigger fool out of our president than he is already making of himself. They should continue to cover his flaws just like they did for their other socialist hero, FDR. Then maybe we have a fighting chance to survive his four-year reign of chaos.
Jimmy Carter will be more than happy to be replaced by Mr. Obama. That way, Jimmy will only be the second worst president in American history.
Media Matters' Jamison Foser highlights a couple new examples of hostility to journalism at NewsBusters:
A post by Geoffrey Dickens taking offense at NBC's Meredith Veiera asking Republican congressment pushing tax cuts, "What's so good about them?"
A post by Brent Baker claiming that NBC's Brian Williams was pushing "the Left’s ten-year-old grudge" when he asked Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer if the court's 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore "hurt the credibility of the modern court?”
As Foser detailed, Dickens seems to think that Veiera should only have asked why tax cuts were good, and Breyer was promoting a book in which he wrote about Bush v. Gore. Foser adds, "Williams’ questions -- like Vieira’s -- were so straightforward I’m surprised even the relentlessly inane Newsbusters crew would pretend to find them offensive."
Further, since both Dickens and Baker are MRC employees, both of these posts werepromoted to the main MRC site.
Caruba Still Falsely Claiming Global Warming Doesn't Exist Topic: CNSNews.com
Alan Caruba haslonglied that there's no such thing as global warming and that the earth is cooling, and he does so again in his Sept. 13 CNSNews.com column. In the midst of a rant about the impending death of incandescent light bulbs, he writes:
Here are some truths to keep in mind: (1) Carbon dioxide (CO2) along with other “greenhouse gas emissions” does not cause global warming. (2) There is no global warming. (3) The Earth has gone through known warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. (4) The Earth is in a cooling cycle.
Um, no. Even longtime climate "skeptic"-friendly critic Bjorn Lomborg -- whom Caruba defended after Obama science adviser John Holdren once criticized him -- has called for the funding of efforts to battle climate change
Tea Party Founder Swings At Gays-in-the-Military Ruling, Misses Topic: WorldNetDaily
Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips writes in a Sept. 13 WorldNetDaily column about a federal district judge overturning the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law against gays in the military:
When someone files a suit to declare a law unconstitutional, the attorney general and the Department of Justice are obligated under law to defend it. While they are duty-bound to defend the law, they do not have to defend it well. The Obama regime knows this.
As the case went to trial, DOJ called no witnesses. The only evidence it offered was the legislative record from Congress.
When judges try a case, their rulings are limited to the evidence that is in front of them. In this case, DOJ offered no real evidence to support DADT. Despite the fact that the judge was a Clinton appointee, she really had no choice in her ruling.
Imagine a baseball game where a team puts its batters up to the plate. The players stand there, but they absolutely refuse to swing at the ball.
That is exactly what the Obama Justice Department did. DOJ's actions were so unusual, the judge even commented on it in her ruling.
Phillips is misleading about the DOJ's efforts in the case. As Media Matters has noted, the case was filed in 2004, and the Obama DOJ has handled for less than two years, so it appears that the legal strategy in the case may have been decided under the Bush administration. Further, the Obama DOJ did much more that just "the legislative record from Congress," as Phillips claims; it filed numerous motions and hundreds of pages of legal briefs, while claiming that the court should consider only "the statute itself and the bare legislative history."
Phillips baselessly asserts that the legal strategy in the case was part of the Obama administration having "concocted a plan to repeal DADT without going through Congress," even though the case was under the jurisdiction of the Bush DOJ for four years. Nevertheless, he adds that "this is yet another example of what liberal elites are capable of when they're granted unchecked power."
Joseph Farah declares in his Sept. 13 WorldNetDaily column that he is tired of his birther crusade being ignored by its target:
With this kind of arrogance after the patience the American people have demonstrated over this matter, I'd say it's time to conclude that he is ineligible for office. He's had plenty of time to provide the evidence to clear himself of this charge, this suspicion, this indictment in the form of overwhelming public opinion.
He has failed to answer the charge. He has failed to enter a plea. He has failed to show up for a hearing. Therefore, I no longer afford him the presumption of innocence.
It's time to recognize what we have serving in the White House today – a pretender, a usurper, an arrogant narcissist who believes it's beneath him to answer the questions of the public and to demonstrate his worthiness for office.
He's like the suspect who refuses to come to court for adjudication. Sooner or later, the judge throws him in jail, recognizing that the presumption of innocence only goes so far.
Many in Washington, who are complicit in Obama's eligibility charade, and the establishment news media, who failed to provide the appropriate journalistic diligence and curiosity to hold Obama accountable, are still wishing, hoping and praying this issue and the public interest in it just fades away.
That isn't going to happen.
And for those who agree with me, it's time to ratchet up the pressure.
Of course, Obama has proven his eligibility -- Farah has chosen to ignore it and spread lies instead. And his statement that "despite suggestions to the contrary, I never accused Obama of being born elsewhere" defies the facts -- we've repeatedly documented Farah and his website promoting exactly that.
By making this unilateral I-will-not-be-ignored declaration, Farah is starting to go all Glenn Close on us. If Obama finds a dead rabbit on his stove one day soon, it's time for him to really start worrying.
Newsmax Endorses Another Primary Candidate Topic: Newsmax
In a Sept. 12 editorial, Newsmax made an endorsement in the Republican primary for New York's 1st Congressional District -- Chris Cox.
The editorial touts Cox as "a solid conservative with a track record to prove it. It didn't mention that another candidate in the race, Randy Altschuler, is the designee of the state's Conservative Party (beating back a petition drive by Cox to force a write-in primary for the party line).
Newsmax's endorsement runs counter to that of other prominent conservatives. As CQ notes, Newt Gingrich has endorsed Altschuler, while Rush Limbaugh has touted a third candidate, George Demos. The three-way primary has become so contentious that it may harm the winner's chances of defeating Democrat Tim Bishop in the general election.
This is at least the third primary endorsement Newsmax has made in this election cycle. Most notably, it endorsed Bill McCollum -- and slanted its news coverage toward him -- over Rick Scott in the Republican primary for Florida governor (McCollum lost). Newsmax also provided an election-day endorsement of John McCain in his primary race, which McCain won easily.
Like the McCain endorsement, Newsmax's endorsement of Cox comes late in the cycle and arguably too late to have any real impact, as the election is today.
Drew Zahn's Sept. 12 WorldNetDaily article is ostensibly a review of the movie "Resident Evil: Afterlife," but much of it is a long, misleading digression into "social Darwinism":
Obviously, moviegoers that don't want to see wanton bloodshed, violence and gore, however, aren't going to want to see "Afterlife."
Furthermore, by digging just a little deeper, the film merits another word of caution: "Resident Evil," in the end, is aptly named, for beneath the video game violence and comic book storyline, the film pushes forward an evil that has quietly taken up residence in Western Civilization and rotted it from within, an evil idea sometimes called "social Darwinism."
Prior to the late 1800s, when the West abandoned the beginning of wisdom to embrace every form of foolishness (Psalms 111:10), its prevailing philosophy still embraced biblical values. Humans were considered made in the image of God, stamped therefore with an inherent value as the handiwork of a magnificent Creator. The highest value driving these Imago Deis was the expression of the essence of that Creator through relationship, the expression of love (1 John 4:8).
But when Charles Darwin's devotees eliminated the Creator from the equation, the eventual result was the elimination of the innate, God-given value of individuals.
Furthermore, the value of reflecting the Creator's love was replaced with a new set of universal laws, among them natural selection and "survival of the fittest." When applied to humanity in what was derided as "social Darwinism," individuals were replaced by valueless hordes striving to gain supremacy over others – the opposite of love – in a battle for limited resources. Only the strong nations, the strong companies, the strong people survive. The weak are left behind. And somehow, this was deemed not only the law of the universe, but in some cases, a better way to organize humanity.
Here we are now, several decades removed from the heyday of such thought, when social Darwinism fueled the abuses of the Industrial Revolution and spawned the concept of eugenics and Adolf Hitler's "superior race." After witnessing the brutality of the Nazis' "final solution," the emerging postmodern world began to rethink social Darwinism.
But that doesn't mean we're free of it.
Case in point, the underlying themes in "Resident Evil: Afterlife."
The zombie film presents humanity as reduced by plague to a faceless mob of undead animals groaning after a limited food supply. They have no value, except as blood-stained splatters for the remaining survivors of the plague.
As for those that escaped the plague, only a few have managed to climb out of this struggle for survival: an elite corporation, genetically enhanced warriors and a lucky band that has outsmarted the horde around them. Just as social Darwinism favored cutthroat businesses and the most "evolved" species, "Afterlife" gives us one, lone business running the world and duking it out with heroes of superior genes and wits.
Voila! Social Darwinism's ultimate end, a showdown on who is the fittest to survive.
Indeed, Western Civilization can't be allowed to go back to social Darwinism. We've seen its consequences, its "final solution."
But return to it we do, in part because the West's prevailing philosophy still denies the truths of God and demands that Darwin holds the keys to the universe. Until we repent and seek real wisdom, we'll likely return to social Darwinism again and again, even as a dog returns to its vomit (2 Peter 2:20-22).
Zahn, as his WND employer has done before, is falsely conflating Darwin's theory of evolution with so-called social Darwinism, a survival-of-the-fittest idea that predates Darwin. That's just a lazy attack on evolution -- and makes for a sucky movie review.
MRC Non-Disclosure Watch Topic: Media Research Center
A Sept. 12 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham highlighting the response of conservative moneybags David and Charles Koch to a New Yorker profile of the brothers and their prolifigate funding of conservative causes fails to mention (as we've noted) that Graham's employer, the Media Research Center, has accepted nearly $10,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Koch Family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.
WND's Richardson: Let Jesus Burn the Quran! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Nevertheless, I also want to state that I am utterly opposed to the planned burning of Qurans.
The answer is because this job belongs to Jesus alone. While Muslims believe that Jesus will return as a Muslim to destroy Christianity, I believe that he will return as a Jew to destroy Islam.
But as much as I would like to rid the earth of this soul-destroying book myself, this job has not been given to me or any other Christian. This job belongs to Jesus. Only He is worthy. And as such, the central hope and expectation of every prophet and apostle throughout the Bible is to eagerly await the "Day of the Lord," when the Messiah will return to execute vengeance, deliver justice and rid the world of all evil.
When the Messiah returns, He will rid the world not only of the Quran but also the collections of Haddith (Islam's other demonic source of sacred authority), Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (an equally anti-Semitic and racist book which is presently a best-seller in the moderate Islamic nation of Turkey), or Barack Obama's favorite textbooks: Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto," and Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals." All of these books will be destroyed and thrown into the fire. And I'm looking forward to it.
Sheppard Baselessly Portrays Gingrich As Statesman Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard declares in a Sept. 11 NewsBusters post that that he can't understand why a writer at Foreign Policy magazine would use Newt Gingrich's name in the same sentence as wannabe Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones as examples of the "Talibanization" of America:
So, as far as this author is concerned, the highly-esteemed former Speaker of the House is the same as a nutty Pastor in Florida that up until a few weeks ago almost nobody in America ever heard of.
Sheppard seems curiously incurious as to why the writer would make such a comparison. Why, it certainly couldn't be Gingrich's statement that "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Or his likening of the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero to the Nazis "a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington" and "the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor." And it certainly couldn't be Gingrich's statement that President Obama is engaging in "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior."
Why, as far as Sheppard is concerned, those are incredibly statesmanlike words that only a "highly-esteemed former Speaker of the House" could make.
Sheppard engages in fantasies elsewhere in the post, asserting that "this whole idea of Islamophobia is a fiction created by America's press that's been negligently presented as a mainstream fear rather than a fringe sentiment in a dishonest attempt to change the public's view of the Ground Zero mosque." His evidence for this is a previous post he wrote making the same claim without any evidence.
That's right -- his evidence that there's no Islamophobia is that he said it before, so it must be true. Sad, isn't it?